"Taxes Avoided by the Rich could pay off deficit"

[pathansen]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/27
Quoted from article in commondreams.org:
1." Individual and small business tax avoidance costs us $450 billion.
2. Corporate tax avoidance is between $250 billion and $500 billion.
3. Tax haven losses are at least $337 billion.
4. That's enough to pay off a trillion dollar deficit. Reasonable tax changes could pay it off a second time:
(a) A non-regressive payroll tax could produce $150 billion in revenue.
(b) A minimal estate tax brings in another $100 billion.
(c) A financial transaction tax (FTT): up to $500 billion.

"Add it all up, and we've paid off the deficit, almost twice. More importantly, the avoided taxes and a few other sensible taxes could provide sufficient revenue for job stimulus without cutting the hard-earned benefits of middle-class Americans."

[gateley]

1. I hope the Campaign uses this. I like the use of the word "avoided".

[Warpy]

2. Most of the shortfall of the last rotten administration

was due to the reckless tax cuts, especially when they were done during a war of corporate convenience plus a war of occupation we are still bogged down in.

I'm afraid the time for ending the ones on the richest but keeping the ones for the rest of us has come and gone. All the tax cuts will have to expire now unless a new Congress is more amenable to hiking taxes on the rich to the point they have to start paying back all they've stolen for the past 35 years.

[zbdent]

3. Ran across an article from last year ...

a Repug was angry about "tax reform" ... because it would "INCREASE" taxes on companies ... because "simplifying the tax code" would eradicate all the loopholes that allow the corporations to evade (legally) paying taxes ...

[brewens]

4. Robme's 13-13% rate has torn the cover off that 50% or more claim you always hear

from wealthy people. Sure, if you add up the base rate of all the taxes they could pay, it might come out to 50%. We know their effective tax rate is much lower than that though.

It's probably the upper middle class people that are strong Republican allies that actually get the short end of the stick. They make enough to pay the some of the higher rates in the country, but are not in the league that lets them have huge investment income, or take advantage of the tax avoidance schemes the 1% do.

It's no wonder the 1% claim paying more than they are and constantly try and tell middle class people Democrats want to take more from them. Anything to keep building their fortunes. They want to have enough stashed away that when people wise up, or everything crashes, they come through with enough intact to still be wealthy.

[Hydra]

6. There aren't that many middle class left

Which makes the argument even more ridiculous. The rich are making most of the higher earners pay for their wars and their toys, and getting away with it by making it look like you can join their club and have the benefits of that.

I've tried to get the hard numbers, and I think this is about right: the buy in for the lowest tier of the 1% is $110 Million in assets.

How many middle class people will ever amass that kind of wealth? The working class and the working poor have about no chance.

The oligarchs are the people we have least in common with...but everyone wants to believe these are "normal people."

Ya, and the world is square...

[reformist2]

8. Upper-middle class Republicans have got to be resentful that Romney pays a lower rate than they do.

[brewens]

9. You'd think. Then there are the poor uneducated Republicans that don't want to pay no taxes

when they git lucky and win the lottery! It may be hopeless to get them to wake up.

[renate]

5. ... but wouldn't that cost the rich money?

That wouldn't be fair.

[Beartracks]

7. And the corrollary is arguably true, too...

... That, taxes avoided by the rich CAUSED the deficit.

=======================

[HiPointDem]

10. kr